What if India had Liberalized Sooner?

« "Children of a Lesser Google" · Main · A Desi Woman's Voice On The Hill »

November 17, 2009

Historical "what-if's" are notoriously difficult to prove but also notoriously delicious to discuss. Would WWII have happened if Hitler had been killed in the trenches of WWI? [W]ith earlier reform, 14.5 million more children would have survived, 261 million more Indians would have become literate, and 109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.Would there have been a WWI if Franz Ferdinand survived the assassination attempt? What if Al Gore got his Florida recount? What would have become of Sonam Kapoor's career if she skipped the flop that was Saawariya?

Arguably, while many of the most famous what-if's focus on chance events in history, prominent Indian econ journalist Swaminathan Aiyar, writing for the Cato Institute, decided to take on a far more considered, deliberate economic policy "what-if". He asks "what if India liberalized its economy 10 yrs earlier ?" Put differently, what if 1970s India followed the economic path pursued by Korea, Japan, and Taiwan?

Until the 80s/90s rounds of liberalization, India followed a Soviet-inspired economic model resulting in stuff like this -

India's per capita GNP growth was only 1.49 percent in the three decades from 1950 to 1980. In this period, socialism was the avowed policy of the government, the peak income-tax rate rose to a record 97.75 percent, several industries were nationalized, and the government sought to capture the commanding heights of the economy.

To answer his alternative history question, Aiyar does two interesting things. First, instead of trying to come up with a hypothetical "Korean policy mapped to India", Aiyar simply remaps the growth rates across different decades within India itself -

This paper considers what would have happened if reforms had begun in 1971. It projects an early-reform, high-growth scenario in which the per capita GNP growth rate in each decade would have been as high as that actually achieved one decade later. That is, this scenario envisages that the trend per capita GNP growth rate actually achieved in the 1980s (2.89 percent per year) would have been achieved in the 1970s; the trend rate actually achieved in the 1990s (4.19 percent per year) would have been achieved in the 1980s; and the trend rate actually achieved in the early 21st century (6.78 percent per year) would have been achieved in the 1990s.

While there are a hundred possible issues with remapping growth rates like this, I think Aiyar's approach is likely the "least bad hack" for estimating some numbers.

Second, while growth rates and their inherent compounding are important academic subjects, they leave the lay audience a little, shall we say, underwhelmed. So, Aiyar mapped those growth rates to a few classic human development indices - infant mortality, literacy, and poverty rates - to guesstimate what the India of today might look like -

...with earlier reform, 14.5 million more children would have survived, 261 million more Indians would have become literate, and 109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

As Aiyar notes, even if a later, more sophisticated model cuts his projections by half, these results are still in a league of their own. These numbers dwarf the proposed outcomes of even the most optimistic charity / foreign aid / econ development / govt-led initiative / NGO / UN program in existence and demonstrate just how pervasive & important bottoms-up GDP growth is for a population. As Aiyar concludes -

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither.

Economics

POSTED BY vinod @ 3:29 PM

123 comments

1 · Dr Amonymous on November 17, 2009 3:58 PM · Direct link

On a sidenote - India's first liberalisation move was in, 1966, I think, when it devalued the rupee under pressure from the United States government after two consecutive bad monsoons had caused a need for aid. the resulting political furor was so great that the Indira Gandhi government had to undo it.

In any case, I'm not going to take up this enormously counterfactual argument but just point out some basic disagreements I have -

growth is not the measure of industrialisation - productivity growth is, alongside such things as diversification, increases in high-end technology use in industry, etc.

the period 1950 to 1980 needs to be broken up into two - there are differences between 1950-1965 or so and 1965 and 1980 that are stark - both politically and economically.

Also, India's industrial policy is better characterised as state capitalist, not socialist, from 1950 to 1965, and planning had essentially broken down by the 1960s.

One would have to assess to what extent the gains from the 1950 to 1965 period in creating certain areas of competence and providing subsidies to businesses like Tata that helped them later become multinationals had in fact ended by 1971.

Finally, as with most countries, one needs to look at what one means by 'liberalisation' - it is not a singular thing, and the means, timing, and statging of adoption has a lot of relevance in terms of how one understands what happens economically later. india remains significantly 'unliberalised' by 1980s IMF standards and has achieved extremely high growth rates - as such, it seems, again to make more sense to look at what HAS happened, rather than to chart numbers for what might have happened, assuming all of one's assumptions are true and one has not missed anything in a political economy with a billion people in it.

2 · Yoga Fire on November 17, 2009 4:33 PM · Direct link

Also, India's industrial policy is better characterised as state capitalist, not socialist, from 1950 to 1965, and planning had essentially broken down by the 1960s.

So is Japan's, Korea's, and even Germany's. The issue isn't state centered capitalism, it's the objective to which it is employed. Countries that went whole-hog for import substitution schemes like India, Egypt, Argentina, and so on failed hard. Countries that strove to make their industries internationally competitive rather than merely "self-reliant" took off like rockets. So yea, governments with nationalist agendas delivered results and governments with socialistic ones continue to be mired in poverty.

The downside to the state capitalist approach as practiced by the successful East Asian economies, however, was that once they caught up to the OECD, they really couldn't direct all the money to go anywhere else. They ended up with a lot of investment capital flying around that produced no net increases in total factor productivity. But those problems didn't really start to kick in until the late 80s/early 90s when all the money started getting poured into real estate rather than industry.

india remains significantly 'unliberalised' by 1980s IMF standards and has achieved extremely high growth rates
Well India's growth has been in those sectors where the state hasn't license Rajed it up. Industries with heavy governmental or union involvement continue to perform abysmally. Manufacturing is a laggard, India's education system is a joke, and it's public health system serves only to subsidize the salaries of doctors who run private clinics on the side rather than the public clinic where they officially work.

3 · nasha on November 17, 2009 4:36 PM · Direct link

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither.

Reminds me of something.

4 · JS on November 17, 2009 4:48 PM · Direct link

Makes for good reading, thanks for posting...though gruesome in its number of missing children, literates, non-poor & Sonam Kapoor's career.

Dr. A, Aiyar specifically mentions in his study that he choose the year 1971, as the beginning of his counter-factual conjecture, to drive home the point that by that time it was evident that socialism, or state capitalism or whatever you want to call it, was not working as the SE Asian tigers had already demonstrated their tigerish growth rates in the previous decade following very different policies. Whatever worked in the 50s and early 60s (and, btw, forced currency devaluations, on the backs of international aid, are not liberalization), it was very evident, and not just in hindsight, that things were falling apart very badly, because of wrong policies.

5 · Yoga Fire on November 17, 2009 4:58 PM · Direct link

Dr. A, Aiyar specifically mentions in his study that he choose the year 1971, as the beginning of his counter-factual conjecture, to drive home the point that by that time it was evident that socialism, or state capitalism or whatever you want to call it, was not working as the SE Asian tigers had already demonstrated their tigerish growth rates in the previous decade following very different policies. Whatever worked in the 50s and early 60s (and, btw, forced currency devaluations, on the backs of international aid, are not liberalization), it was very evident, and not just in hindsight, that things were falling apart very badly, because of wrong policies.

One thing to keep in mind when making comparisons against the East Asian countries, though, is that they had different political dynamics. Immediately after independence the emphasis of the state was, rightly, on preserving what was left of the Union. India is much more diverse than Japan and Singapore.

Resultantly, India had some unique difficulties in maintaining and building it's identity as a nation and much of that was done by basically bribing local leaders with patronage politics to hold the country together. Such is the pre-Indira Gandhi Congress party's legacy. The post-Indira Gandhi legacy is, of course, bribing local leaders with patronage to hold the Congress party together.

6 · JS on November 17, 2009 5:09 PM · Direct link

Yoga Fire -- Yes, India was very different, both in it's composition and circumstances from which it arose, in the early decades of independence. But the fact that Aiyar "backpolates", if I may invent a word, just the following decade's growth rate to the previous decade, shows that incremental reform, of these later decades when India did hold together, onto one decade earlier would have not resulted in the tragedy suggested by his numbers.

7 · hack on November 17, 2009 5:13 PM · Direct link

I think Aiyar's approach is likely the "least bad hack" for estimating some numbers.

because why not? it is a hideous way of reasoning. which is not to say there were tons of problems in the 70s and 80s. but cato rewards these kinds of outrageous hacks when it is in service of their agenda, and swaminathan aiyar has always been ready to oblige.

8 · Sameer on November 17, 2009 6:23 PM · Direct link

Looking back is worth it if there are things that we can use today to make better decisions. There is no point in looking back if all you're going to do is regret. It won't change the past and doesn't really help either the present or the future.

9 · Wanderer on November 17, 2009 6:26 PM · Direct link

I agree with Sameer..should now concentrate on what needs to be done..I just came back from Punjab..looking just at that state, cultural changes not occuring, but economic development continuing as it is, within 20 years the richest states will almost be in line with the other Tiger Economies..within 30 possibly better place to live than all Non American western countries..

10 · Sameer on November 17, 2009 6:31 PM · Direct link

Well India's growth has been in those sectors where the state hasn't license Rajed it up. Industries with heavy governmental or union involvement continue to perform abysmally. Manufacturing is a laggard, India's education system is a joke, and it's public health system serves only to subsidize the salaries of doctors who run private clinics on the side rather than the public clinic where they officially work.

Also the legal system needs to improve. It takes way too long. A legal system is supposed to provide justice equally and enforce accountability.

11 · Wanderer on November 17, 2009 6:35 PM · Direct link

India just lacks law and order ( chah day paisa system) and cleaniness..maybe it has too much religion ??

12 · Dr Amonymous on November 17, 2009 6:47 PM · Direct link

Resultantly, India had some unique difficulties in maintaining and building it's identity as a nation and much of that was done by basically bribing local leaders with patronage politics to hold the country together.

this is exactly the kind of reasoning that is needed - to look at what has actually happened, consider political and economic factors together, understand social structure, look at how they interplay with each other, etc. one can have a legitimate debate about the extent to which ideology, patronage, and force played parts in the Nehru and post-Nehru Congress parties; same applies to many of the other arguments you've made above - they are serious arguments.

they do not make such claims as - if, contrary to actual history, the indian government had managed to transport exactly the same conditions that existed in 1991 back to 1971, and then instituted the same policies, less children would have died between 1971 and 2009. it's a bit disgusting. where does such a conversation lead? a back and forth argument over relative consensus like india's gdp structural break happened in 1980, not 1991? what's the point?

So is Japan's, Korea's, and even Germany's. The issue isn't state centered capitalism, it's the objective to which it is employed.

'The' issue is a lot of things. one of the issues is the one you raise, but whether it is among the more relevant or less relevant ones is arguable. Pakistan had similar industrial policies to Korea in the 1950s and 1960s and a somewhat similarly positioned autonomous state and it resulted in the civil war. So the objective is only one aspect of the problem, and creating industrialiation is far more difficult (whcih i think you appreciate) than most people believe. it also takes far longer than most people think of - the 'industrial revolution' in britain was - what - decades long? and finally, it is accompanied by massive, massive violence, and it is at best a mixed blessing DURING the process - or another way to put it is that the benefits to future generations is born of the blood of the people who live during industrialisation.

In any case, my main point was simply that India never attempted a fullly redistributionary agenda at all - let alone a socialist one. the period of the 1960s has been identified as one in which specific classes - not the relatively very poor, but not the relatively very rich - were able to demand a greater share of resources, but that is a far cry from 'socialism' and even if this is the case, it is still an argument to be made as to how and why this impacted the political economy of india. there are so many different takes on why india stagnated in the 1960s, from arguments based in inequaltiy to arguments based on a deadlocked and fractured ruling class to arguments based on a misdirected policy agenda as you've made (but the, why was it so?) to others...it's not a simple thing, especially when you consider that productivity collapsed in pakistan and bangladesh as well - personally i lean towards a geographic/world systems theory type analysis, but in concert with other things, but it's not simple.

point being, if words like 'socialistic' are going to be used, it's important to be clear about what they mean, because some of us actually do believe in some form of social democracy - as a political end, with the economic evaluation still tbd :D the nehruvian high caste, upper class dominated pyramid of factions with entrenched landlord power at the lower levels is not exactly what i would consider socialism. and as we saw, nor was it stable.

13 · ArchanaP on November 17, 2009 6:59 PM · Direct link

just came back from Punjab. . . within 20 years the richest states will almost be in line with the other Tiger Economies..within 30 possibly better place to live than all Non American western countries.

I want what you're smoking, Wanderer. Maybe the Punjab will be a great place to live for gay men, given the screwed up sex ratio of those geniuses. . . .

14 · Khandra on November 17, 2009 8:15 PM · Direct link

If India had liberalized it's economy 10 years ago, I would not be sitting in a cube in a mid tier US company worried that my job will be outsourced to India after having so hard to get my H1, then my green card and eventually my US citizenship. Instead I would be working in Bangalore with a high tech company drinking mocha during my break, hanging out with the cool crowd and laughing about how I took over some hapless American's job. Screw you India for not having liberalized earlier.

15 · TTCUSM on November 17, 2009 8:45 PM · Direct link

I can't help but think that this whole argument is pointless...
Building an economy requires natural resources, and China has enough to build 2-3 coal-fired power plants per WEEK.
I wonder how much is left in India right now?

16 · 7*6 on November 17, 2009 9:31 PM · Direct link

if this evidence is as forceful, why would there still be Indians with a progressive/socialist bent?

17 · najeeb on November 17, 2009 9:34 PM · Direct link

one thing i can think off is that the domestic industries like tatas, birlas and reliance might not have been able to sustain their business competing against MNCs that have flooded the indian market now, if it had happened earlier - i dont know whether it is 10 years or 20 years, but i think the protectionist measures did help in that front.

18 · notyetan econph.d on November 17, 2009 9:40 PM · Direct link

Its interesting that an economist decided to engage in what clearly is a creative exercise for its own sake. Obviously engaging in what if's is ....fairly pointless but fun. Clearly he is more conservative in terms of government involvement with the economic, sympathizing with laissez-faire. But I wonder what he feels about the view of many economic analysts that India was able to better shelter its political situation and its still tenacious nationalism with conservative economic policies.
Widespread poverty generally breeds discontent and the common man is less likely to be sympathetic to a government spouting laissez-faire, when he is still unable to afford regular meals.
I recently have just finished reading articles that advocated the viewpoint that African nations adopting America-brand liberalism had a much harder time consolidating their nation, building centralization, and nationalism due the government not drastically intervening in a socialist way. Poorer populations generally prefer socialism - only the rich and upper middle classes are critical of government handouts and assistance.
So the response to this huge "what if" is:
> would India have had a considerably larger amount of internal security, warfare, discontent, secession issues if they had liberalized earlier? (Much like many African Nations)
> Would the earlier liberalization have led to larger disparities between rich and poor and marginalized a possible middle class? A middle class that is currently seen as one of the world's largest and on of India's biggest assets?
>Would Indian industries have died without the assistance of the government and been completely taken over by foreign companies? (Ex. Nigeria and Oil) In the U.S we are currently struggling to maintain our own car industry- and its clearly seeking government assistance
>Would India allowing liberal trade policies as advocated by the U.S. at the time, to put it plainly- screwed India over by making India economically dependent on Western Nations like it did for Africa and and Latin America (pretty much a muted economic neo-imperialism?) This dependence/relationship is pretty much what Dependency Theory in its hey-day loved.

again obviously the man was engaging in a creative exercise but it would have been even more challenging if instead of just reporting possible happy results he went on to consider the possible non-economic and possibly bad ramifications

19 · ptr_vivek on November 17, 2009 9:48 PM · Direct link

7*6 #16:

if this evidence is as forceful, why would there still be Indians with a progressive/socialist bent?

And then the libertarian historian disappeared in a poof of logic

20 · Manju on November 17, 2009 9:54 PM · Direct link

if this evidence is as forceful, why would there still be Indians with a progressive/socialist bent?

why does Palin believe in evolution?

21 · Matt on November 17, 2009 10:00 PM · Direct link

I wonder what he feels about the view of many economic analysts that India was able to better shelter its political situation and its still tenacious nationalism with conservative economic policies.

The same "analysts" advised India to go the Soviet Way and ended up consigning India to the third world for 50+ years

Widespread poverty generally breeds discontent and the common man is less likely to be sympathetic to a government spouting laissez-faire, when he is still unable to afford regular meals.

Laissez-faire promotes job creation and enables the common man to find regular meals. On the other hand, Socialism breeds a permanent underclass

I recently have just finished reading articles that advocated the viewpoint that African nations adopting America-brand liberalism had a much harder time consolidating their nation, building centralization, and nationalism due the government not drastically intervening in a socialist way.

The problem was government backed crony corporatism is often confused with the free market

I hope you learn better before you finish an econ phd (assuming you are one)

22 · Matt on November 17, 2009 10:04 PM · Direct link

Umm, India's private sector was enormously inefficient and bloated pre-1991. It is only after being exposed to foreign competition and better ways of doing business from the West that they became world-class. If no liberalization had happened, Ambassador would be the only car still plying over the pot-holed Indian roads. Besides, if the socialist way of doing things was so much better, why did many Indians (including the parents of the kids spouting Marxist nonsense here) immigrate to the west

23 · Matt on November 17, 2009 10:16 PM · Direct link

In any case, my main point was simply that India never attempted a fullly redistributionary agenda at all - let alone a socialist one.

Sky-high tax rates on private business, government deciding what you can buy, who you can do business with is not socialism, what is socialism then,enlighten us

the period of the 1960s has been identified as one in which specific classes - not the relatively very poor, but not the relatively very rich - were able to demand a greater share of resources

Inevitable result of socialism, where the government elite loot the nation, while the peasants wallow in mud-huts, in-spite of its "pro-poor" rhetoric

but that is a far cry from 'socialism' and even if this is the case

What India did from 1948 to 1991 is socialism and the results are exactly the same as documented in Eastern Europe and Maoist China

, it is still an argument to be made as to how and why this impacted the political economy of india. there are so many different takes on why india stagnated in the 1960s, from arguments based in inequaltiy

Inequality which went from bad to worse, due to the government elite enriching themselves at the expense of the proles

to arguments based on a deadlocked and fractured ruling class

Congress had a monopoly on power from 1948 to 1991, what fractured ruling class are you talking about

to arguments based on a misdirected policy agenda as you've made (but the, why was it so?) to others

Misdirected policy agenda, a PC lib-speak for socialism

It makes me sick to see the children of the immigrant Indians that fled their socialist hell-hole praising the very same policies that made a mess of their ancestral homeland.

24 · 7*6 on November 17, 2009 10:23 PM · Direct link

why did many Indians (including the parents of the kids spouting Marxist nonsense here) immigrate to the west

why should they do what their parents did; that's being conservative isn't it.
Besides circumstances change; their kids are richer and have more time to think and can better understand the current world perhaps. The economic rules that seemingly ruined India two decades back could well lead to prosperity in the US now. In fact, what's to say a more progressive/socialist economy wouldn't lead to riches now in India itself; hasn't it liberalized enough?

25 · Matt on November 17, 2009 10:34 PM · Direct link

why should they do what their parents did; that's being conservative isn't it.

Precisely, therefore if they immigrated to the west, which means the western economic system is better is it not?

Besides circumstances change; their kids are richer and have more time to think and can better understand the current world perhaps.

The kids would not been richer, had their their parents stayed in their socialist paradise. Sadly, looks like they do not understand the world better

The economic rules that seemingly ruined India two decades back could well lead to prosperity in the US now.

Yeah, pigs can fly too

In fact, what's to say a more progressive/socialist economy wouldn't lead to riches now in India itself; hasn't it liberalized enough

An Indian who wastes a week to get a DL without paying a hefty bribe might have something to say on that. China has followed the free market and boomed while Burma and Vietnam followed the "progressive" path and remained stunted.

26 · Manju on November 17, 2009 10:36 PM · Direct link

why does Palin believe in evolution?

oops. i meant the other theory

27 · 7*6 on November 17, 2009 10:57 PM · Direct link

oops. i meant the other theory

well the fossils merely indicate that it was dinosaurs in some eons earlier age that did any evolving if any. Circumstances and time change. What's to say that creationism did not play a role in humans in the near past (4000 years back) What's to say it is not playing a role now.
Creationism for an initial period of time could also have allowed the domestic evolution to grow for all we know.

28 · prashoot on November 17, 2009 10:57 PM · Direct link

Besides circumstances change; their kids are richer and have more time to think and can better understand the current world perhaps. The economic rules that seemingly ruined India two decades back could well lead to prosperity in the US now. In fact, what's to say a more progressive/socialist economy wouldn't lead to riches now in India itself; hasn't it liberalized enough?

Right, now that capitalism is working, lets go back to an overregulated license raj. Sounds like a brilliant plan!

I am constantly amazed by the degree of self-denial required to hold far-left views.

29 · JS on November 17, 2009 11:15 PM · Direct link

why should they do what their parents did; that's being conservative isn't it. Besides circumstances change; their kids are richer and have more time to think and can better understand the current world perhaps. The economic rules that seemingly ruined India two decades back could well lead to prosperity in the US now. In fact, what's to say a more progressive/socialist economy wouldn't lead to riches now in India itself; hasn't it liberalized enough?

Thanks for the laughs, bud...that roar you hear from the other side of the world is the Chinese Communist Party Politburu yukking it up over some Krug and caviar, paid for by the resources of yet another African country they bought last week!

30 · JS on November 17, 2009 11:18 PM · Direct link

Oh, 7*6 your sarchasm is a thing to behold...well done:)

31 · worf on November 17, 2009 11:29 PM · Direct link

This whole thread is seriously misframed. You should all read Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang.

Personally I think had India never been created by the British and instead numerous different states taken its place, atleast a few of all those different states would have pursued the policies needed for explosive growth and we would have one or more brown Tigers for the rest of the states to emulate. Sort of like how Japan influenced the thinking processes of much of the East Asian leadership

32 · his masters voice on November 17, 2009 11:43 PM · Direct link

wow. what a spectacularly rubbish piece of work aiyar has churned out. but his paymasters at cato must be proud because this kind of "scholarship" is par for the course from cato hacks.

33 · Akash on November 17, 2009 11:55 PM · Direct link

India just lacks law and order ( chah day paisa system) and cleaniness..maybe it has too much religion ??

before everything it needs to address its population growth. Population & poverty are the biggest polluters. I can't still digest how a vibrant democracy like India lags way behind the authoritarian China.

34 · notyetan econph.d on November 18, 2009 12:28 AM · Direct link

Obviously economists are definitively affected by their liberal and conservative leanings. So Matt...please don't give yourself an aneurysm, that too over a ...........blog...........of people who don't live in India..................
econ is a SOCIAL science.....so no definitive answer like math.
So its suffice to say - Mr. Aiyer is clearly a conservative economist- also ....he's being bankrolled by Cato... which is obviously conservative so if he spouted the pro's of India not-liberalized- it would not have ended well for him.
Also the point of his paper was a what if- I just personally think he should have been a bit more fair and explored the what if a bit further. He basically made the overall paper sound like "if india liberalized earlier......there would be more rainbows and sparkles"
It is ridiculously to assume only good outcomes- I would have liked to hear the bad and possible rebuttals to my previously mentioned liberal concerns.
To definitively argue/ truly regret India not liberalizing is pointless and akin to arguing that if China hadn't gone isolationist in the Zhou Dynasty- China and India would have still had the old world order.
As for India and its adoption of conservative and liberal policies- we may never know as political scientists and economists still struggle to find why the some countries of the third world ended up the way they did, particularly since India is one of the largest exception to most classic theories and rules and policies. (A trend that seems to exist in all disciplines- Indus Valley civ's don't fit any of the classic theories of early state formation)

p.s. def. not an econ ph.d- simply a pretentious elitist teacher who reads blogs to procrastinate writing high school lesson plans!

35 · nasha on November 18, 2009 12:36 AM · Direct link

Personally I think had India never been created by the British and instead numerous different states taken its place, atleast a few of all those different states would have pursued the policies needed for explosive growth and we would have one or more brown Tigers for the rest of the states to emulate. Sort of like how Japan influenced the thinking processes of much of the East Asian leadership

Dividing India into many different states would only result in socialist paradises in those very states and would be disastrous in regards to foreign policy. No Tigers then, only cows.

36 · nasha on November 18, 2009 12:47 AM · Direct link

I would appreciate it if we can address the substance of Aiyar's actual thesis instead of attacking his affliation (CATO) which is no worse from writing from ThinkProgress or any other think tank. I am learning a lot more everyday because of this website so I do hope the thread does not get derailed over Aiyar's affiliation with CATO.

37 · worf on November 18, 2009 1:10 AM · Direct link

"Dividing India into many different states would only result in socialist paradises in those very states and would be disastrous in regards to foreign policy. No Tigers then, only cows."

Given the unbelievable heterogeneity of India I doubt all of the states would have followed the same economic policies. Amongst the multitude of states, I'm sure a diverse range of economic policies would have been tried, and given competitive forces the failing policies within states that are behind economically after a decade or two would give way to the policies of states that are ahead. Maybe one or so Tigers within the first few decades and then all Tigers after wards.

38 · Anand on November 18, 2009 2:39 AM · Direct link

That’s a lot of hackery to make a simple point that India already seems to agree with. I smell a neocon propaganda campaign to convince poor countries to take shitty IMF loans and cede effective control of their economies to Ayn Rand loving assholes under the guise of embracing the market economy, thereby ensuring said assholes remain the boss of us.

Or maybe I’m paranoid.

39 · bunty on November 18, 2009 2:51 AM · Direct link

was pakistan socialist through the same period? if not, what accounts for its worse indicators?

40 · badmash on November 18, 2009 4:55 AM · Direct link

While there are a hundred possible issues with remapping growth rates like this, I think Aiyar's approach is likely the "least bad hack" for estimating some numbers.

Well put - these issues are complicated. Arvind Panagariya's recent work really adds a lot of dimension to the simplistic old narratives about Nehruvian socialm vs. neoliberal reform - I think he even has a chapter comparing the Korean and Indian experience. Like it or not, Nehru did a great deal of good for the economy and it was growing well until the mid-sixties. The economy's progress got detrailed for political reasons (Indira Gandhi consolidating her power by going Left). But even she bactracked by the 1980s, when India expeirenced more industrial growth than even the post-reform period (except '93-'96).

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither.

Well Mr. Aiyar, given what's happening in large parts of the north and east of the country I'd say that the reforms aren't really delivering either!

41 · Dr Amonymous on November 18, 2009 7:31 AM · Direct link

Apologies in advance for the length of this comment.

I agree with the commenter above who put into far fewer words than I've used what I believe - this whole discussion is hideously misframed. Just for our collective benefit (and feel free to contest - the whole point of all this is to say that actually trying to understand INdia's post independence political economy is HARD):

With regard to India from the 1950s to the mid 1960s, what you had was heavy investment by the state in the capital goods sector (e.g. steel, etc.). This was an effective subsidy for private business. You also had a stable political arrangement in which the Congress was able to haev complete control through factions which made up larger factions which made up larger factions. It ultimately depended on that social stability, given the size of the palce and how heterogeneous it was, benefited from the honeymoon period for Congress following idnependence, and other had an elaborate system of links between people at different levels of the factions to allow some sense of overall coherence. You can see some of the successes in things like the linguistic reorganisation in 1957 - which is a masterstroke of politics that, since we're going wtih counterfactuals, might ahve saved India. at the same time, you DON't have any fundamental challenge to the landholding class though some people have argued that it was a 'war of maneouevre' between capitalists and landholders.

This broke down in the 60s through 79 (i'd say basically after the death of nehru and the absence of any other charismatic independence movement figures) and congress itself split in two, with the operatives on one side and indira gandhi (Congress (I)) on the other side. There was also a productivity collapse and industrial stagnation, a few bad harvests, a bad war, and a lot of other factors, but in essence the system collapsed. tehre are a LOT of explanations offered for why this occured, of which, I've been trained in one (Mushtaq Khan - that India's social structure fragmentation reflects itself in unstable political factions and subfactions which allows businesses to convert learning rents to monopoly rents and thereby make themselves immune from the threat of withdrawal of those rents - which basically means that there is no stick left to ensure productivity grwoth and international comptetitiveness). but there are many others. but there is still the argument that overtime, this was a slow process of growth of an indigenous capitalist class. there is also a section betwen the wealthy and the majority of the pouplation that is extremely important (the intermediate classes - or what is the equivalent of middle classes in wealthier countries - clerks, small shop owners, etc.)

It ended with the Emergency and the aftermath adn especially the return of Indira Gandhi and a PRO rich economic policy (there's a very good article by Atul Kohli on this). India's growth rates (GDP growth rates taht is) started increasing after 1980, not 1991 - so the argument has to be - did liberalisation start before 1991 and we're looking at the wrong tme, or were there things besides liberalisation that led to growth. For example, Atul Kohli says from the 1980s you have the gradual development of a pro-wealthy and pro-busienss economic polciy (he also relates this to the need for communal politics, since if you're going to have pro-rich politics in a liberal democracy, you have to find a way to appeal to voters besides bread and butter). From my standpoint, this unsurprinsingly coincides with the gradual not sudden collapse of the Soviet Union) though India by any measure preseved far more autonomy than places like Pakistan and Bangladesh - and that autonomy is at least as great a raeson for its ability to generate high growth rates - as you can see with other large countries that managed to retain autonomy, like China.

From my standpoint, "liberalisation" in the sense of the ideology of state industrial policy adapted after 1991, would be the RESULT of the class orientation of the state, rather than the cause. I don't fully understand the 1991 to present era, except from what I have been presented with - which is that the companies that were able to gain some levels of competence under the plannign framework were able to succeed both doemstically and internationally (the tatas of the world) with few exceptions of new companies (e.g. reliance). but it's a lot more complicated, because you have long term trends (like the children of those wealthy landlords are now more like agricultural or urban capitalists, which lends credence to the idea of 'slow transformation'). But like I said, I don't understand it - I only understand that when people say 'India has high growth rates because of liberalisation' [and by implication, that This Is Good] they usually are either playing games or they dno't know much of the history, politics, and economics.

What I found offensive above is that in speaking of a country that has adopted pro-rich and pro-business policies for 25-30 years, where 77% of the population at last count is poor (that' a billion people), the author of this paper is engaging in games like 'if you chose my economic policy ideas instead of yours in 1971, then hundreds of millions of chidlren would have lived' - like i said, it's crass, in addition to have a really simplistic understanding of what industrialisation means (it doesn't ONLY mean GDP growth).

42 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 9:57 AM · Direct link

in addition to have a really simplistic understanding of what industrialisation means (it doesn't ONLY mean GDP growth).

That kind of misses the point. It's like saying "being well fed doesn't ONLY mean having lots of money." While growing GDP might not improve your human development levels if you don't have any social welfare policies, not growing GDP will definitely not improve your human development level.

43 · Al beruni on November 18, 2009 10:48 AM · Direct link

A really important topic, glad to see at least a few serious responses. Swami Aiyar is a serious dude, he is not some Ayn Rand freak, he has a long history of quality output. I dont see how it matters that Cato has thrown him a few bucks.

He is a journalist, not a phd candidate, so his writing has a more controversial tone than some might like. But in the indian context, where the maa-baap sarkar attitude still prevails, he has been a real dissident and fresh thinker.

Here are some side-notes on the discussion -

1) Cold War - lets not forget the sharp hostility between the indian and US govts during the early 70s. The bangladesh war showcased the worst side of US cold war extremism, through its support of genocide in Dacca, and there was a period of high tension between the two countries. As a direct response to this situation india signed the "Friendship Treaty" with USSR in the 70s and became for a period essentially allied with the soviet union. How could india have reached out to the west for investment and collaboration with this context?

2) Indira Gandhi - lets face it, this lady was not a strategic economic thinker in any sense. She was tough and nationalistic - I certainly respect her actions re:bangladesh - but she devoted most of her energies domestically to cynical maneuvering and breakup of state govts. Goverment control of the economy was just a tool to her to destroy her opponents - it is also during this period that govts started to own bakeries and hotel chains. Investment in infrastructure and a broad-based education system was also modest, though again she did emphasize indian autonomy and achievements in science and technology. Some credit for the green revolution of the late 60s must accrue to her as well.

44 · RC on November 18, 2009 11:13 AM · Direct link

Great post Vinod!!!
I think one more point worth noting in this what-if scenario is the fact that India never had a political right-of-center, pro-business (ala the Republican party) party with national reach. This caused the ruling Congress which always has been a socialist party to have a complete unopposed rule until the NDA govt (led by Vajpayee) came to power in later part of nineties.
India's liberalization was FORCED onto her by IMF. This is exactly what happens when there is one party rule. The ruling party has no reason to do anything that may cause a short term turmoil but is very important long term.

That's why the post election implosion of the BJP is worrisome. Lets hope that recent switch of Kalyan Singh to BJP is suggesting that BJP's fortunes are improving.

45 · Dr Amonymous on November 18, 2009 11:46 AM · Direct link

That kind of misses the point. It's like saying "being well fed doesn't ONLY mean having lots of money." While growing GDP might not improve your human development levels if you don't have any social welfare policies, not growing GDP will definitely not improve your human development level.

I'm not being clear (as usual). When I'm saying GDP is not a good indicator for measuring industrialisation by itself, I'm not saying 'in comparision to human development indicators'. That is a separate debate and in some sense a philosophical and ethical one, in addition to a political one. What I am saying is that GDP is not a good indicator for measuring what industrialisation means, economically - diversification, increasing use of high tech in production, global comptetitiveness, a restructuring of the economy, more formalisation, and above all, productivty productivity productivity growth. And if you consider the geopoitics of it, its implication is increasing influence and power in the region and world, and, over time, higher product for the same labour input (in county - global context is different).

That doesn't mean industrialisation of a particular society is good or bad, positive or negative -i'm trying to offer an empirical description of what it is. Case in point - Britain's GDP growth during the industrial revolution was something like 2% per annum in one source I read.

46 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 12:00 PM · Direct link

When I'm saying GDP is not a good indicator for measuring industrialisation by itself, I'm not saying 'in comparision to human development indicators'. That is a separate debate and in some sense a philosophical and ethical one, in addition to a political one. What I am saying is that GDP is not a good indicator for measuring what industrialisation means, economically - diversification, increasing use of high tech in production, global comptetitiveness, a restructuring of the economy, more formalisation, and above all, productivty productivity productivity growth. And if you consider the geopoitics of it, its implication is increasing influence and power in the region and world, and, over time, higher product for the same labour input (in county - global context is different).

But if we can get the (per capita) GDP growth without industrialization why wouldn't we do it? What I care about is the money and the improvements to social welfare it can buy. If heavy industry is not the tool that gets it to us I don't much care. Of course, industrialization is the only way we really know of to do this, but I see no point in pursuing some reified notion of an "industrialized economy" as an end in itself. The goal is to get the stuff the industry can generate, not to make industries for fun. Let's not put carts before horses.

47 · Maia on November 18, 2009 12:10 PM · Direct link

I'm with hack. Methodologically this is f***ed up on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

48 · Dr Amonymous on November 18, 2009 12:46 PM · Direct link

But if we can get the (per capita) GDP growth without industrialization why wouldn't we do it?

Well, it's useful to push on this front, but it needs to be fleshed out - my issue with gdp per capita is that it simply measures economic activity without accounting for increased amounts of services and goods from the same amount of labour. As a result, you can generate the appearance of an increase in wealth built on increased labour exploitation or an oil boom that doesn't really seem satisfactory to me as a social solution - though I am glad you opened this up for debate.

From my perspective, if someone could develop a way of improving people's life chances, sustaining the environment, and not engaging in the violence of industrialisation (or the abuse that capitalism entails), I woudl be all for it. I'm just pessimistic which is why I was using the model of industrialisation :( But, as you point out, I have no rational reason for being so other than the lack of historical examples.

49 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 1:13 PM · Direct link

my issue with gdp per capita is that it simply measures economic activity without accounting for increased amounts of services and goods from the same amount of labour.

Money is money and productive capacity is productive capacity. The same factory that produces a BMW can be modified to produce a Nano. If you don't have the factory, though, you have nothing. When you're a developing country your government's job should be to increase the capital stock (sustainably.) The only way to do that is to make more money and keep investing it.

50 · nasha on November 18, 2009 1:24 PM · Direct link

Given the unbelievable heterogeneity of India I doubt all of the states would have followed the same economic policies. Amongst the multitude of states, I'm sure a diverse range of economic policies would have been tried, and given competitive forces the failing policies within states that are behind economically after a decade or two would give way to the policies of states that are ahead. Maybe one or so Tigers within the first few decades and then all Tigers after wards.

Perhaps, ideally. But in regards to foreign policy, most states would become mired in foreign policy tik-for-tak. There would be lots of bandwagoning and the region would become ideal for foreign meddling because of the lack of one strong central authority. If the conflict between India/Pakistan is considered to be bad now, that would be nothing compared to India splitting up into a thousands of different states. The Asian Tigers were able to focus on economically because they were small states spending either comparitively small amounts of money on defense or having a security guarantee due to a deal with the United States. Besides, there have been small states in South Asia that have split up and that did not end up as an economic powerhouse - namely Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan which by your standards ought to have much better than they are now, mostly because of political conflicts with their neighbors or civil war. India is more analogous to these three states than the East Asian Tigers.

51 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 1:28 PM · Direct link

Perhaps, ideally. But in regards to foreign policy, most states would become mired in foreign policy tik-for-tak. There would be lots of bandwagoning and the region would become ideal for foreign meddling because of the lack of one strong central authority. If the conflict between India/Pakistan is considered to be bad now, that would be nothing compared to India splitting up into a thousands of different states. The Asian Tigers were able to focus on economically because they were small states spending either comparitively small amounts of money on defense or having a security guarantee due to a deal with the United States. Besides, there have been small states in South Asia that have split up and that did not end up as an economic powerhouse - namely Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan which by your standards ought to have much better than they are now, mostly because of political conflicts with their neighbors or civil war. India is more analogous to these three states than the East Asian Tigers.

For an example of this phenomenon in action, we need look no further than the clusterfuck that was the Balkans after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

52 · LinZi on November 18, 2009 1:35 PM · Direct link

"...261 million more Indians would have become literate,..."

I have a question (rather than a statement)... Aren't the states in India with the highest literacy rates the states that established a more extensive government run education system under a socialist or communist political rule?

53 · Wanderer on November 18, 2009 1:52 PM · Direct link

ArchanaP I agree re the gender ratio, cultural attitudes is partly what holds part of India back..re Punjab, check out the data, you will find it is the 9th richest re GDP, 3 re individual wealth, after Mahashatra and Gujrat, with Chandigarh the second richest city in all India

54 · Wanderer on November 18, 2009 1:58 PM · Direct link

Akash
India just lacks law and order ( chah day paisa system) and cleaniness..maybe it has too much religion ??
before everything it needs to address its population growth. Population & poverty are the biggest polluters. I can't still digest how a vibrant democracy like India lags way behind the authoritarian China.

Because it is not truly authoritarian and every one has a me first attitude, which in Punjab and Delhi at least you can see in the driving..Chinese have an ordered mind and system, just look at the Oriental respect for authority and rules. A Mental change is required which is not there yet...Social things like the caste system assist Poverty, and ensure the least educated have too many kids..I feel like I'm teaching y'all to suck eggs..I'm sure all this is obvious

55 · Dr Amonymous on November 18, 2009 2:03 PM · Direct link

[in] a developing country your government's job should be to increase the capital stock (sustainably.) The only way to do that is to make more money and keep investing it.

Right, but what we're arguing over is how best to increase the rate of accumulation, not the necessity of accumulation (again, strictly from an economic vantage point) - which is where the question of productivity growth comes in.

What might make sense is to identify a goal (e.g. PC GDP at $15,000 or so whcih is what i've seen in some articles as a measure at which 'happiness' doesn't increase after) rather than the implicit measure I'm using, which is convergence of PC GDP with wealthier countries.

56 · LinZi on November 18, 2009 2:19 PM · Direct link

"Because it is not truly authoritarian and every one has a me first attitude, which in Punjab and Delhi at least you can see in the driving..Chinese have an ordered mind and system, just look at the Oriental respect for authority and rules."

"the Oriental"?... Wanderer, I am pretty sure that term is very outdated and also generalized ALL Asians, including Indians.. (And also, from what I have gathered from my East Asian friends, cringe-worthy/negatively used term)

"Orientals" aside, I do agree that India society in general still has a very "me first" attitude. I don't know who else has had the pleasure to ride the Delhi Metro yet (it's awesome!) but the only downside I have come accross is that, even though it doesn't (as yet) get any more packed than the Boston T during rush hour, you still have to run and fight to get on/off the train at the stations... people will not stad aside and let people exit the train, rather both sides must shove and push to get on or off before the train leaves... Also, coming from America where we find standing in lines (and not cutting) a sacred duty, I was all flustered and confused in India to find you can't just pasively stand in line, but you have to command your space and always constantly be saying "Hey Bhay! I was here first...." etc (something I am not so good at doing, unfortunately for me!)...

It sort of makes sense though, if you are in a country with a high population and a as of yet high poverty rate, that the people who get ahead and stay ahead are the ones who follow the "me first" attitude...because if you don't go and grab what's there, someone else will!

57 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 2:29 PM · Direct link

(And also, from what I have gathered from my East Asian friends, cringe-worthy/negatively used term)

"Oriental" is considered okay to describe inanimate objects. They only take umbrage about describing people.

Of course someone, somewhere will always be offended by you no matter what you do. So the general rule is that if it is obvious that no offense is intended then none should be taken unless. To be otherwise is to be a whiny baby.

58 · whiny baby on November 18, 2009 2:43 PM · Direct link

" So the general rule is that if it is obvious that no offense is intended then none should be taken unless. To be otherwise is to be a whiny baby. "

Oh absolutely, so if I use outdated terms like "Negro", "Darky" or descriptive terms like "chinky" with offense intended, I'm sure no one would mind at all, right? And if they do, they would most certainly be a whiny baby"

59 · whiny baby on November 18, 2009 2:44 PM · Direct link

*withOUT offense intended

60 · LinZI on November 18, 2009 2:49 PM · Direct link

from wikipedia, my ever-useful quick reference friend:

"The term Orient particularly included regions that used to be known as Persia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Egypt.[citation needed] As awareness of other Asian countries grew in European consciousness, the term often came to mean South Asia, Southeast Asia or East Asia. By the late 19th century, the term usually referred to China, Japan, Korea and surrounding nations while the British colonists frequently used it when speaking of India. Remnants of the older conception of the Orient still exist in the English language in such collocations as Oriental studies (now largely replaced by Asian studies), Oriental rug and Oriental harem. It has taken on a specific usage since the publication of Edward Said's influential book, "Orientalism" (1980)."

61 · Wanderer on November 18, 2009 2:51 PM · Direct link

Na y'all getting personal

62 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 2:55 PM · Direct link

Oh absolutely, so if I use outdated terms like "Negro", "Darky" or descriptive terms like "chinky" with offense intended, I'm sure no one would mind at all, right? And if they do, they would most certainly be a whiny baby"

The only ones who use those words without offense intended are almost certainly people with a tenuous grasp of American language and culture. So if you're getting your knickers in a twist over that then yes, you are being a whiny baby.

@Linzi:
It means different things in the American context than it does in the context of more international English. The US had a lot of Chinese immigrants in the 1800s and "Oriental" was used to refer to them and their stuff.

63 · LinZi on November 18, 2009 3:03 PM · Direct link

Yes, but most of the people I know who use the term "Oriental" in the U.S. do tend to use it out of lack of knowledge of the specifics of the cultures they are refering too. I don't think wanderer had that in mind, but I just thought I would point out that people can take offense to that terminology--- plus "Oriental" can also be applied to ALL of the 'east', India included.. so it is not really the best term for the job anyways....

Personnally speaking, my friends of East Asian descent have very specifically told me that they find the term "Oriental" offending (whether in terms of people or objects) because it over generalizes many different cultures and is often used in a negative way.

64 · LinZi on November 18, 2009 3:08 PM · Direct link

"The only ones who use those words without offense intended are almost certainly people with a tenuous grasp of American language and culture."

Well if someone with a 'tenuous grasp of American language and culture' mistakenly uses a term that is inappropriate, wouldn't it be helpful to let them know the connotation of the word? If I made the same mistake in Hindi, I would be embarassed but glad someone told me the term was innappropriate.

Especially after seeing some of the textbooks of English that still exist in today in India (I have seen some teaching words like "Negro" for example), it would be good for someone to point these things out before the word is used in a situation where offense could be taken!

65 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 3:20 PM · Direct link

Especially after seeing some of the textbooks of English that still exist in today in India (I have seen some teaching words like "Negro" for example), it would be good for someone to point these things out before the word is used in a situation where offense could be taken!

Why? It's offensive in the US because we have events very specific to American history that twisted the use of that word to be derogatory. In a country without that history the term won't be derogatory.

I just thought I would point out that people can take offense to that terminology

They can, but people get offended over all sorts of meaningless twaddle. That doesn't automatically confer their claims with merit. It's a pretty simple rule I live by. "Don't be a dick and don't automatically presuppose that everyone else is a dick." It saves me a lot of conflict over aforementioned meaningless twaddle.

"Oriental" offending (whether in terms of people or objects) because it over generalizes many different cultures and is often used in a negative way.

Once again, it's only generally considered offensive when referring to people. My university dorm list-serv had a long, involved, and heated conversation on this very subject some years ago.

66 · LinZi on November 18, 2009 3:35 PM · Direct link

yogafire: "Once again, it's only generally considered offensive when referring to people."

That's your opinion, I guess. I think "Negro" is an offensive term in the English language, not just in American English, if someone is learning a language then they should not what terms are offensive and what are not. If I go around in the U.S. calling people "Harami" and "Chuut" Americans won't find that offensive because they don't know what I'm saying, that doesn't mean they aren't offensive terms.

Anyways, enough of this back and forth. I am not personally offended or upset for someone using that term, but I just thought to point out the negative connotations of the term. You don't have to agree with me, but I am basing it on what East Asian friends have told me, and I respect their opinion.

67 · Yoga Fire on November 18, 2009 3:54 PM · Direct link

Anyways, enough of this back and forth. I am not personally offended or upset for someone using that term, but I just thought to point out the negative connotations of the term. You don't have to agree with me, but I am basing it on what East Asian friends have told me, and I respect their opinion.

Were these friends "Asian Studies majors" by any chance? Because like I said, most Asians I've talked to aren't really offended by it. At most it's a tone of "That's supposed to be offensive" while not really being offended about it themselves.

68 · abba on November 18, 2009 5:06 PM · Direct link

My university dorm list-serv had a long, involved, and heated conversation on this very subject some years ago.

oh, ok then. that settles it.

69 · Wanderer on November 18, 2009 6:10 PM · Direct link

In the UK Oriental only refers to far east, that is east of India, encompassing China, Korea Japan et al. As English was invented in the UK, I say we decide what it means, and in that sense it is used to differiate between the far east and Indian sub continent...now stop worrying about semantics and focus on the issue of Indian liberalisation

70 · In-Jain on November 18, 2009 6:53 PM · Direct link

Lot of academic or observational type comments on this board. As someone whose entire extended family has been in business for the past 5 generations, I can tell you the biggest hurdle was the government back then and is still the hurdle today. Store the intellectuals and communists in Universities, move some Banias/Marwadis into Delhi and see India prosper. The people skills are already in place, the aggressive Northern and Western Indian, the competent from the South and the unskilled labor from the East.

Change the Government mindset, there is no piousness in poverty.

71 · an intellectual on November 18, 2009 7:35 PM · Direct link

there is no piousness in poverty.

it is piety.

72 · In-Jain on November 18, 2009 7:49 PM · Direct link

it is piety.

Thank you, and I am sure my Business application was rejected by the intellectual.

73 · gangtok slim on November 19, 2009 12:01 AM · Direct link

Dividing India into many different states would only result in socialist paradises in those very states and would be disastrous in regards to foreign policy. No Tigers then, only cows.

I was talking to some Gujarati folks recently about economic progress in that state and one or two quite seriously stated they thought declaring independence from India and going at it alone (under revered Modi's steady hand) would free them from shackles of (as they put it) populism, communalism, pseudo-secularism and other keep-the-Guju-man-down policies from the Center. They cited figures such as Gujarat contributing 18% of India's tax revenues in 2000-2001 despite only having 6% of its population.

74 · Eddie S. on November 19, 2009 1:32 AM · Direct link

o·ri·en·tal (ôr'ē-ěn'tl, ōr'-)
adj.

often Oriental Of or relating to the countries of the Orient or their peoples or cultures; eastern.
2.

Oriental Of or designating the biogeographic region that includes Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains and the islands of the Malay Archipelago.
3.

Lustrous and valuable: oriental pearls.
4.

Of or relating to a genuine or superior gem: an oriental ruby.
2.

Relating to or designating corundum that resembles another stone in color.

n. often Oriental Often Offensive An Asian.
o'ri·en'tal·ly adv.

Usage Note: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Oriental—meaning "eastern"—is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

American English

While a small number of reference works used in the United States describe Oriental as pejorative, antiquated or offensive in some instances, the American Heritage Book of English Usage notes that

It is worth remembering, though, that Oriental is not an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. It is most objectionable in contemporary contexts and when used as a noun, as in the appointment of an Oriental to head the commission. In these cases Asian (or a more specific term such as Vietnamese, Korean, or Asian American, if appropriate) is the only acceptable term. But in certain historical contexts, or when its exotic connotations are integral to the topic, Oriental remains a useful term.[3]

Random House's Guide to Sensitive Language states "Other words (e.g., Oriental, colored) are outdated or inaccurate." This Guide to Sensitive Language suggests the use of "Asian or more specific designation such as Pacific Islander, Chinese American, [or] Korean." [4] Merriam-Webster describes the term as "sometimes offensive,"[5] Encarta states when the term is used as a noun it is considered "a highly offensive term for somebody from East Asia." [6]
[edit] British English

In British English, the term Oriental is usually used to describe Eastern Asian people of Chinese/Japanese/Korean descent and some Southeastern Asian groups such as Vietnamese, whereas the term Asian generally describes the people or descendants of people from the Middle East or the Indian Subcontinent and its surrounding countries.[citation needed] (These latter people are called South Asians in the United States.)
[edit] Australian English

In Australian English, the term "Asian" is generally used in reference to people of Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans and Japanese ethnicity. However, the term is sometimes expanded to include South Asians and other Asians of darker skin tone, also. Usage of the term is chiefly regional and often varies according to personal preference.

For example: Australians generally refer to people of: Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese or Chinese descent as Asian(s) and persons of Indian or Sri Lankan descent by their respective demonym(s).

The word Oriental, in place of Asian, is seldom used in colloquial conversation in Australia.[citation needed]
[edit] Canadian English

In Canadian English, like Australian English, the term "Asian" is used most often to refer to people of eastern Asian descent and other similar southeastern groups. It can be expanded, however, such as in colonial times, to include the more southern Asian countries such as India and Sri Lanka , which is quite common, especially in use by South Asians themselves. In modern Canadian usage, according to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, the term "Oriental" is considered offensive when applied to a person of East Asian ancestry.[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient

75 · Tk on November 19, 2009 2:59 AM · Direct link

Aren't the states in India with the highest literacy rates the states that established a more extensive government run education system under a socialist or communist political rule?

True for Kerala, but false for the other communist state that's tellingly referred to as Waste Bengal. And all states qualify to be termed socialist states, because every political party pursues an economic agenda that is more left leaning than any found in the USA. That's just how Indian states will be oriented because of where they've been pre-liberalization and due to the acute need for basic government sponsored safety nets.

76 · badmash on November 19, 2009 5:49 AM · Direct link

I think one more point worth noting in this what-if scenario is the fact that India never had a political right-of-center, pro-business (ala the Republican party) party with national reach

Actually the Swatantra Party was right of centre. Unfortunately it fizzled out after Rajagopalachari's death. India was not forced to liberalize after 1991 - a reform process was already in place. 1991 was a major milestone, but I don't think that it was a 'kicking-and-screaming' scenario. After all, Jyoti Basu even jumped on the bandwagon (saying that they had to take advantage of the reforms to benefit WB).

Al beruni

but she devoted most of her energies domestically to cynical maneuvering and breakup of state govts.

True dat! As you rightly point out, most people also tend to gloss over the influence the Cold War had on Indian economic policy.

77 · boston_mahesh on November 19, 2009 2:00 PM · Direct link

Right now, an insidious form of capitalism is taking root within India, and that is the predatory capitalism which enslaves. In India, we have two brothers - the Ambanis - who control about $100B in wealth. This number is about 1/11 the ENTIRE ANNUAL GDP OF INDIA. There are many other billionaires within India, and therefore, power is very concentrated into the hands of a few. The same argument can be made for the USA.

I do see eye-to-eye with the Maoists/Naxalites. These people were historically "low-casted", and they were denied opportunities. They resent Pepsi and their UK-educated upper-caste Hindu from encroaching on their land and colonising.

India needs a MORE STEEP progressive tax structure, among other things. Liberal should occur more rampantly, and the government should do more ambitious civil engineering projects.

78 · Najil on November 19, 2009 2:01 PM · Direct link

Two related aspects to be remembered here

1. India had been experiencing a negative growth rate during the last 50 years or so of the colonial rule. It is natural that it may take a while to give life to the economy and hence the

2. The period of Nehru as the prime minsiter were when institutions of the nation were build such as IITs. Though his 'temples of modern India' idea flopper, the investments made in the period has tremendously benefited the country, long term

I guess one needs adjust of these while back-projecting the growth figures.

79 · LinZi on November 19, 2009 2:31 PM · Direct link

It seems to me, (mind you, I'm biased since I study education!) that the Indian government really need to focus on infrastructure right now-- getting water and proper sanatation, dealing with roads and bridges, and electricity and all that, but especially getting a better run educational system in place. If you look at countries that went from struggling to becoming top competitors in the world, like Japan, one of their BIG changes was focused on their education system-- making sure all the children in the country can receive a good solid education.

I think a lot of possible talent and innovations are lot because so many people don't have access to education and hence don't have access to contribute to India in a big way-- instead they are left to menial tasks. I mean, just look at all the amazing ways Indians who have grown up poor without access to a decent education have used creativity and innovation to carve out a little space for themselves-- Imagine what would happen if all of those people had access to education- and therefore to the internet-- to books-- to the world at large-- to the latest scientific discoveries-- etc. Right now even being literate is a far away dream for so many-- let alone a quality education that would allow them the access to the innovation, design, and development of new ideas going on in the world today.

Personnally, I think education is one of the most important keys to success in a country-- providing education for all children will raise access, help raise incomes, allow people to take advantage of knowledge they didn't have access to before, organize and communicate, and also allows more and more children the chance to stand out and make important contributions to the world.

Honestly, I don't understand why the Indian government is dragging it's feet so much in this regard, and letting the state of the gov't schools continue to fade into corruption or disrepair. As a nation, I really think they need to invest the time and money into creating a GOOD, well-run (I know, it's a dream, but hey, they could actually create some checks and balances to root out corruption) system that reaches all the children atleast until 14 years old. If they did that, I don't see how the country's economy could NOT raise insanely. (Also poverty reduction, protection of human rights, health... all these things would improve along with it)

I mean, what's to lose, really?

80 · Yoga Fire on November 19, 2009 2:57 PM · Direct link

"Education" is a fuzzy word. Every kid in India gets an "education." They don't learn to read or write, but they learn survival skills and the family trade.
Before we can say "education" we need to actually define what that means. What goals are we pursuing, what kinds of citizens do we want to raise, and how are we going to distribute the responsibility of raising them to be what we want them to be?

In my book the minimum bar is basic literacy and numeracy. If we want to be ambitious we can ramp that up to literacy in at least 3 languages (Regional, official/standardized Hindi, and English), math skills up to algebra, and basic knowledge of how to use a computer and research things on the internet. From there, you can pursue an education in any other area you want through private teachers, thereby saving the country money.

81 · TTCUSM on November 19, 2009 3:31 PM · Direct link

boston_mahesh wrote:

In India, we have two brothers - the Ambanis - who control about $100B in wealth.

Mukesh Ambani took a 2/3 pay cut in order to set an example of moderation.

82 · TTCUSM on November 19, 2009 3:45 PM · Direct link

LinZi wrote:

If you look at countries that went from struggling to becoming top competitors in the world, like Japan, one of their BIG changes was focused on their education system-- making sure all the children in the country can receive a good solid education.

LinZi, Japan didn't exactly start out "struggling". Unlike India, Japan was never colonized by another country.
For that matter, I don't think any of the Tiger countries were under foreign rule for as long as we were...

Also, focusing solely on education might not be such a good idea. Graduate unemployment is already high-- can the economy really absorb a sudden influx of new graduates?

83 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 3:49 PM · Direct link

Honestly, I don't understand why the Indian government is dragging it's feet so much in this regard, and letting the state of the gov't schools continue to fade into corruption or disrepair.

Caste-ism. So obvious, yet so taboo to mention. But it's why India is so far behind China on literacy and economy.

84 · Lupus Solitarius on November 19, 2009 4:18 PM · Direct link

In my book the minimum bar is basic literacy and numeracy. If we want to be ambitious we can ramp that up to literacy in at least 3 languages (Regional, official/standardized Hindi, and English), math skills up to algebra, and basic knowledge of how to use a computer and research things on the internet

That's very true IMO, Yoga Fire. I would also add a well devised and relevant civics syllabus including basic rights and duties of citizens, knowledge of important acts like RTI etc so that it becomes less likely for voters to be taken for a ride by those whom they elect.
Also, I feel that a year or two spent in compulsory military/defense service at some stage might not be a bad idea.It need not be an active field/combat type job, but any kind of organised, regimented service.
It will promote interaction between people from different regions of the country, would free many minds from caste prejudices and improve the overall fitness and discipline of the youth.
Of course the logistics of this exercise would be huge.

85 · Tk on November 19, 2009 4:33 PM · Direct link

In India, we have two brothers - the Ambanis - who control about $100B in wealth. This number is about 1/11 the ENTIRE ANNUAL GDP OF INDIA.

So what? Just for context, at a similar stage of development, Rockefeller's wealth exceeded the entire GDP of the USA. Things didn't work out so badly then did they?

They resent Pepsi and their UK-educated upper-caste Hindu from encroaching on their land and colonising.

Uh huh. And I suppose these upper-caste Hindus must be hand in glove with some Christian missionaries?

Honestly, I don't understand why the Indian government is dragging it's feet so much in this regard, and letting the state of the gov't schools continue to fade into corruption or disrepair.

Simple. The state is incompetent in the extreme. These days the Indian Right is continuously increasing the education funding started by the Hindu Right earlier this decade. But the incompetence of the state is a huge roadblock even if the money doesn't end up in an offshore account. Further, citizens unfortunately believe that every problem will be solved by the government, and have to be weaned off dependence on the government.

86 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 4:46 PM · Direct link

The state is incompetent in the extreme

Yes. But isn't the incompetence endogenous?

87 · Lupus Solitarius on November 19, 2009 5:08 PM · Direct link

Yes. But isn't the incompetence endogenous?

Not endogenous, but endemic, like Malaria. Could be eradicated in a lifetime, or could linger on for centuries.

88 · Dr Amonymous on November 19, 2009 8:38 PM · Direct link

The state is incompetent in the extreme.

To an extent, you're mixing up capacity and competence.

89 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 8:43 PM · Direct link

To an extent, you're mixing up capacity and competence.

What do you mean by that--that the Indian state is competent, but lacks capacity? How many years of independence does it need before it can be as good as the government of freaking Peru??

90 · Akash on November 19, 2009 9:13 PM · Direct link

we can ramp that up to literacy in at least 3 languages (Regional, official/standardized Hindi, and English),

I figured, learning Hindi was useless except to watch the Bollywood movies

91 · TTCUSM on November 19, 2009 9:26 PM · Direct link

ArchanaP wrote:

How many years of independence does it need before it can be as good as the government of freaking Peru??

You know, Archana, if you're dissatisfied with the performance of the Indian government, you could always try joining the IAS and changing things...
Just wanted to put that out there...

92 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 9:38 PM · Direct link

you could always try joining the IAS and changing things... Just wanted to put that out there...

Thanx for the suggestion, but I hate India (the nation, not the people)--that's why we left.
Representing the diaspora, yours truly.

93 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 9:47 PM · Direct link

you could always try joining the IAS and changing things...

My 2 grandfathers wasted their lives working for the Indian state--thanks, but no thanks. I aim to invest my human capital where it matters.

94 · Al beruni on November 19, 2009 9:48 PM · Direct link

Thanx for the suggestion, but I hate India (the nation, not the people)--that's why we left. Representing the diaspora, yours truly.

Thanks for offering to represent us! But actually you dont represent anyone except your hatefilled (hateful?) self. So be off and enjoy your hate someplace else !

95 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 10:15 PM · Direct link

But actually you dont represent anyone except your hatefilled (hateful?) self

Not true. I represent generations of mistreated desi gals. But, don't worry, I'll work it out with my gori boyfriend while you go sulk.

96 · Tk on November 19, 2009 11:16 PM · Direct link

To an extent, you're mixing up capacity and competence

Because financial resources are not as much of a problem these days, it is becoming clear that the issue is competence NOT capacity. Take the case of infant mortality in Delhi - this stat has not budged in 11 years! Surely it is not the case that the capital territory lacks either urban infrastructure or funding.

97 · ArchanaP on November 19, 2009 11:22 PM · Direct link

it is becoming clear that the issue is competence NOT capacity. Take the case of infant mortality in Delhi - this stat has not budged in 11 years! Surely it is not the case that the capital territory lacks either urban infrastructure or funding.

Yes,yes, yes--I hate the communists, but, as bad as they are, they at least recognize the right to life of little babies . . .. sometimes, in the dark of the ngiht, I hate being desi, because I'm not sure what's good there--after the woman-hatrred, what. . . .

98 · Akash on November 19, 2009 11:33 PM · Direct link

I represent generations of mistreated desi gals.

oh common, did the 'nation of free' ever had a woman president? India being so diverse, you can't generalize this.

99 · brownstone on November 20, 2009 12:01 AM · Direct link

"What if India had Liberalized Sooner?"

So, you're asking what might have happened if an Indian investment bank started the global financial meltdown instead of a U.S. one?

P.S.

Love the historicism, Vinod. Read alternate World War II novels much?

kisses,
brownstone

100 · LinZi on November 20, 2009 1:24 AM · Direct link

"LinZi, Japan didn't exactly start out "struggling". Unlike India, Japan was never colonized by another country."

Except when A-bombs were rained down upon and it it's economy went to crap during WWII:

"The war cost Japan and countries part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere millions of lives and left much of the country's industry and infrastructure destroyed."

"In 1947, Japan adopted a new pacifist constitution emphasizing liberal democratic practices. The Allied occupation ended by the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952[37] and Japan was granted membership in the United Nations in 1956. Japan later achieved spectacular growth to become the second largest economy in the world, with an annual growth rate averaging 10% for four decades. This ended in the mid-1990s when Japan suffered a major recession. Positive growth in the early twenty-first century has signaled a gradual recovery.[38]"
(wikipedia: Japan: History)

From what I know...up until that time Japanese society was largely based on the ancient feudal system.

101 · LinZi on November 20, 2009 1:42 AM · Direct link

YogaFire: ""Education" is a fuzzy word. Every kid in India gets an "education." They don't learn to read or write, but they learn survival skills and the family trade.
Before we can say "education" we need to actually define what that means. What goals are we pursuing, what kinds of citizens do we want to raise, and how are we going to distribute the responsibility of raising them to be what we want them to be?

I think you brought this up before... yes it is important to define what education is... for me this means access to all the "tools" a person needs to be able to continue their education independently... so of course that would include the basics everyone needs to further access information: literacy, math, basic understanding of science, and so forth. I worked at a pilot school in Boston for awhile, we had what are called the "Habits of Mind" which I think are a very important part of education:

"Five Habits of Mind

The Habits of Mind are an approach to both the traditional academic disciplines (math, science, literature and history) and the interdisciplinary stuff of ordinary life. They are what lead us to ask good questions and seek solid answers. They are our definition of a well-educated person.

1. Evidence: How do we know what’s true and false? What evidence counts? How sure can we be? What makes it credible to us? This includes using the scientific method, and more.

2. Viewpoint: How else might this look like if we stepped into other shoes? If we were looking at it from a different direction? If we had a different history or expectation? This requires the exercise of informed “empathy” and imagination. It requires flexibility of mind.

3. Connections/Cause and Effect: Is there a pattern? Have we seen something like this before? What are the possible consequences?

4. Conjecture: Could it have been otherwise? Supposing that? What if...? This habit requires use of the imagination as well as knowledge of alternative possibilities. It includes the habits described above.

5. Relevance: Does it matter? Who cares?

None of these five habits stand separately. And the way we use such habits differ if we are studying a mathematical proof, a scientific hypothesis, an historical dispute, a debate over economics, the appreciation of a piece of art, a critique of a novel, the telling of a myth or narrative, or the settling of a playground dispute."

So in my opinions, I would include the basic skills and something like the habits of mind as "education". With that as a foundation, a person has the tools they need and the ability to access information that can allow them to simply make day-to-day life easier, or choose to take this knowledge to go further- with more education or independently.

Also, I just wanted to mention that I think the idea that "Every kid in India gets an "education." They don't learn to read or write, but they learn survival skills and the family trade." is a bit of a romanticized notion of India (or anywhere). Yes, children who do not go to school learn survival skills. But that's what they are. Survival skills. I think for every child who does not go to traditional "school" in India but learns a "family" trade there are many more children who spend their childhood surviving and working in an unskilled job that will not improve their livelihood as adults at all... if you check out any studies on child labor in India, you can see that the statistics show that children who go to work at a younger age as LESS likely to make more at the same job than an untrained person who comes to work at the same job after receiving more education (i.e. formal schooling) There are many who argue that children in India are learning "family trades" and there is actually a part of the child labor laws which allow for children to work in environments otherwise deemed harmful if they are working in a "family trade". This has actual become a loophole for factory bosses to use to continue to use children in harmful work environments and also in splintering off factories into small, home-based work, but that's another topic.

Honestly, I don't think that in the changing India of this era that many families are really passing on these "family" trades in the same way as they did historically... traditional family trades like pottery are not as viable with the advent of plastics, unless the potters can adjust their products to an international audience, for example. Other "family" trades like Gem stone/Jewelry usually employ somebody else's young children to do the unskilled labor, while their own children go to formal schooling and come back later to run the business. Industries like carpet weaving as passed as a family trade-- but the carpet weaving industry prefers children, and the conditions are so harsh that most children as unable to work by the time they are adults-- so yes the trade does get passed on in that sense-- from children to children.

I would love to know some trades in the India of now where viable trades are passed on in that manner, does anyone know of any?

102 · LinZi on November 20, 2009 1:50 AM · Direct link

So if the Indian government is so corrupt/incompetent, etc... than what can people do about that? I mean I know a lot of people in India are turning to other forms of education in response to the pathetic-ness of the government schools-- either private schools or non-profit run education. But honestly, is corruption just going to be like the two-party political system in the U.S.?-- everyone is tired of it, but no one thinks they can change anything so they don't try and then they feel depressed and despondent that is still the same... I mean, bleh. I wish both Indians and Americans would get sick of this and stand up and demand something...

103 · Sathya on November 20, 2009 2:42 AM · Direct link

I smell a neocon propaganda campaign to convince poor countries to take shitty IMF loans and cede effective control of their economies to Ayn Rand loving assholes under the guise of embracing the market economy, thereby ensuring said assholes remain the boss of us.

Well said. People like Aiyar should be considered traitors. The "Ayn Rand loving assholes" have been thoroughly discredited by the global economic crisis brought about by the Washington Consensus. Anyone who still looks at Wall Street, unregulated markets, selfish greed etc as their Saviour is either a frickin brainwashed retard or upto no good.

After almost two decades of american style economic liberalization India ranks #134 in the Human Development Index. Below Laos, Botswana, Namibia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea. It lags behind even subsaharan Africa in its inability or unwillingness to tackle the widespread hunger problem which kills millions of indian children every year. It is obscene to claim that the path India has taken is alleviating poverty and hunger. Frankly, unless the majority of desis are disgusted by the likes of Aiyar and the rest of the "India Shining" crowd there is no hope for fundamental change.

104 · Sathya on November 20, 2009 2:52 AM · Direct link

Store the intellectuals and communists in Universities, move some Banias/Marwadis into Delhi and see India prosper.

Self-serving casteist bullcrap. The banias of India are a selfish and greedy lot with little concern for India. Just look at the home states where these prominent bania businessmen come from (Gujarat and Rajasthan). By any standards they are as much backward, impoverished and hungry hellholes as the rest of India.

105 · Dr Amonymous on November 20, 2009 6:18 AM · Direct link

Because financial resources are not as much of a problem these days, it is becoming clear that the issue is competence NOT capacity.

I don't normally put myself in the position of defending the Indian government, but I think the charges of its incompentence are grossly overstated, particularly compared to wealthier countries without a history of being colonised (and thereby disfigured) and during a global recession.

It's not just economic capacity - it's also poltical capacity, social structure, historical conflict, and other factors, as well as the sheer difficulty of trying to make growth-creating industrial policy in a poor country. On the economics, there is the 1 trillion dollar+ GDP but there are also the billion+ citizens. = or $1,017 in income per person per year, when averaged, around the same as Krzygistan, Chad, and Pakistan. The top ten% in India have a per capita GDP of about 1800, from what I last read, which further exacerbates political problems which the government HAS to attend to if you don't want the state to fall apart (which the Indian governm,ent doesn't).

I'm not saying there's not waste- there's a ton of waste, corruption, and economically non-productive violence (not that economically productive violence is good). But that'st he case with virtually every poor country and is probably more of a effect than a cause.

106 · PS on November 20, 2009 7:37 AM · Direct link

Except when A-bombs were rained down upon and it it's economy went to crap during WWII:

You can only take the comparison with Korea and Japan so far and it's good to learn "lessons" from other countries experiences but let's not simplify things too much.

Japan suffered an ignoble defeat after WWII and like Germany, US put millions and years of money rebuilding it. Japan's constitution was written by its conquerors - the US and other Allies. Japan did not need to spend billions of dollars on an military to protect itself - the US readily did that for Japan and took the right away for Japan to even have a miliatry; Japan is a tiny country, very homogenous compared to the large South Asian countries. Britian didn't spend billions rebuilding India, after it left the region depleted. Indians have had to spend to build their military and the country does reside in an unstable part of the world. So let's take the comparisons with an understanding of the full history, geography of what's been going on in the different regions of the world and understand the very real differences.

107 · PS on November 20, 2009 7:40 AM · Direct link

I represent generations of mistreated desi gals

Well you certainly don't represent me being part of the diaspora.

108 · Sameer on November 20, 2009 7:43 AM · Direct link

Liberalization - doesn't save a country from problems. In Paul Krugman's book "Depression Economics" (latest edition) he discusses countries in Latin America and Asia that liberalized earlier and how they ended up crashing by the 1980s and 1990s. Their economies crashed around the same time India's liberalized.

How you "liberalize" your economy matters, and what matters lot, just as much or even more, is how sound your country's economic policies are since liberalization. Krugman's book is far more useful in showing how this happened and what lessons to take from them - which the US and many developed countries did not. Lessons of other countries experiences that India would also benefit greatly.

109 · Sameer on November 20, 2009 7:46 AM · Direct link

I represent generations of mistreated desi gals.

Martyr much. Pulease! Go play your violin somewhere else. You represent YOU.

110 · LinZi on November 20, 2009 10:12 AM · Direct link

"Japan suffered an ignoble defeat after WWII and like Germany, US put millions and years of money rebuilding it. Japan's constitution was written by its conquerors - the US and other Allies. Japan did not need to spend billions of dollars on an military to protect itself - the US readily did that for Japan and took the right away for Japan to even have a military; Japan is a tiny country, very homogenous compared to the large South Asian countries. Britain didn't spend billions rebuilding India, after it left the region depleted. Indians have had to spend to build their military and the country does reside in an unstable part of the world. So let's take the comparisons with an understanding of the full history, geography of what's been going on in the different regions of the world and understand the very real differences."

PS, that's a very good point. Britain just up and ran, leaving everything to go nuts at partition. Plus, as colonists, they basically squeezed the land and people dry, and left behind a rigid system of inequality they used to divide and pacify the people. That left India in a much different situation than Japan, to be certain. I should not have made that comparison. There are a lot of other countries that Britain 'de-colonized' around the same time as it left India, Sudan for one:

"After gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1956, Sudan suffered a civil war, lasting 17 years, subsequently followed by ethnic, religious, and economic conflicts between the Northern Sudanese (with Arab and Nubian roots), and the Christian and animist Nilotes of Southern Sudan.[10][11] Thus this led to the start of a second civil war in 1983, and due to continuing political and military struggles, Sudan was seized in a bloodless coup d'état by colonel Omar al-Bashir in 1989, who thereafter proclaimed himself President of Sudan.[12]"

The North and South parts of Sudan were really two completely different groups of people which were arbitrarily grouped into one country under British rule (who liked to use methods of inequality amongst groups to divide and rule the people). Interesting to see the long lasting affects of British colonialist policy there.

Another country it left around the same time: Palestine:

"The British Mandate of Palestine, where an Arab majority lived alongside a Jewish minority, presented the British with a similar problem to that of India.[136] The matter was complicated by large numbers of Jewish refugees seeking to be admitted to Palestine following Nazi oppression and genocide in the Second World War. Rather than deal with the issue, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve,[137] which it did by voting for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state."

We all know what is happening there now....

Amazing when you put all the pieces together (though there are many more nations I did not mention that Britain pulled out of in the 19402-1060s era) and see how Britain up and ran, leaving so many nations in shambles with no help to rebuild the destruction they had caused. Comparing India to those countries, I would say India is doing great!

111 · Yoga Fire on November 20, 2009 10:53 AM · Direct link

Self-serving casteist bullcrap. The banias of India are a selfish and greedy lot with little concern for India. Just look at the home states where these prominent bania businessmen come from (Gujarat and Rajasthan). By any standards they are as much backward, impoverished and hungry hellholes as the rest of India.

This is just ignorant. Gujarat is among the richest states in India and Rajasthan is a primarily a desert. Exactly what would you expect to grow there?

The "Ayn Rand loving assholes" have been thoroughly discredited by the global economic crisis brought about by the Washington Consensus.

Washington Consensus? Your anti-capitalist boilerplate is about a decade out of date darling.

After almost two decades of american style economic liberalization India ranks #134 in the Human Development Index. Below Laos, Botswana, Namibia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea. It lags behind even subsaharan Africa in its inability or unwillingness to tackle the widespread hunger problem which kills millions of indian children every year.

American style economic liberalization? India's most right wing-parties would be Goddamn communists in the USA. There's nothing "American" about India's economy. If you want to know why India ranks so low in HDI look no further than the persistent problems of patronage politics, caste-baiting, and the thinly veiled socialists throughout its bureaucracy who continue to hew to outdated and disproven economic models because it lets them maintain their positions as overpaid paper-pushers.

112 · Yehudi-Hindu bhai bhai on November 20, 2009 12:10 PM · Direct link

Another country it left around the same time: Palestine:
We all know what is happening there now....

The desert is blooming?

113 · Dr Amonymous on November 20, 2009 2:35 PM · Direct link

If you want to know why India ranks so low in HDI look no further than the persistent problems of patronage politics, caste-baiting, and the thinly veiled socialists throughout its bureaucracy who continue to hew to outdated and disproven economic models because it lets them maintain their positions as overpaid paper-pushers.

Come now - I expect better from you :) You really think that 'socialist' politics in the bureaucracy is the problem? rather than the pre-existing poverty combined with a new collective self-interest by most of the bureaucracy and the larger capitalists in India based? India has always, since Indepdenence, been premised on expanding its capitalist sector at the cost of the ordinary people if need be - the latest war by your so-called 'socialists' on the poor - (see- war on 'Maoists', Nandigram, Gujarat, Lalgarh) - just like in Telangana in the early years or the war of Indira Gandhi and CPI(M) on leftwingers in the early 1970s.

The NREGA is extraordinary like Operation Barga because it is a slight break from the preexisting trend (whcih i hope will continue and blossom, while others might find use for only in maintaining political stability), and even that it is a minimal social welfare move compared to what COULD hypothetically be done (e.g. land reform) given political will - which is almost never there except in places like Kerala where there is active party competition and there HAS been significant social restructuring over a century.

114 · Yoga Fire on November 20, 2009 2:50 PM · Direct link

India has always, since Indepdenence, been premised on expanding its capitalist sector at the cost of the ordinary people if need bethe latest war by your so-called 'socialists' on the poor - (see- war on 'Maoists', Nandigram, Gujarat, Lalgarh) - just like in Telangana in the early years or the war of Indira Gandhi and CPI(M) on leftwingers in the early 1970s.

So you're saying that no true Scotsma- I mean, Socialist, would trample on the ordinary guy to line his own pockets?

The NREGA is extraordinary like Operation Barga because it is a slight break from the preexisting trend (whcih i hope will continue and blossom, while others might find use for only in maintaining political stability), and even that it is a minimal social welfare move compared to what COULD hypothetically be done (e.g. land reform) given political will

The NREGA is a colossal waste of money that has produced negligible improvements in infrastructure, mere scraps for the people it's meant to help, and a bonanza of ill-gotten graft from the government trough for bureaucrats and clerks. If you want a real social welfare move, make public school teachers show up to work. That would do 100 times more than any state-dependency inducing give-away you could ever imagine.

115 · Mangesh on November 21, 2009 12:26 PM · Direct link

Najil said
‘India had been experiencing a negative growth rate during the last 50 years or so of the colonial rule. It is natural that it may take a while to give life to the economy and hence the’

Do you have any proof that India was experiencing negative economic growth from 1897 to 1947

TTCUSM said
‘LinZi, Japan didn't exactly start out "struggling". Unlike India, Japan was never colonized by another country.’

Persia (Iran) and Ethiopia were never colonised by any other nation, but what success stories have they been. They were conquered by Europeans and held for a short time. I believe Iran was conquered by the British and the Soviets for a short time to prevent the Iranians to go to Adolph Hitler’s side. Indeed Japan (and Germany) were completely devastated after the Third World war. Thailand which was never colonised did well but is not as prosperous as the heavily colonised Hongkong.

TTCUSM said
‘For that matter, I don't think any of the Tiger countries were under foreign rule for as long as we were....’
Hongkong left the British Empire only in 1996. Indeed if I am not mistaken the per capita income of the people in Hongkong was greater than that of the U.K. during the 80s when it was part of the British Empire!
Taiwan was colonised since 1544 by the Portuguese followed by the Dutch, Spanish and the Japanese. Today’s Taiwanese are mostly the descendants of Chinese immigrants. The original Taiwanese have become a minority just like the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians.
S.Korea faced Japanese colonial rule for about 40 years and then occupation and division of the country by the Americans and the Soviets. That was followed by a brutal devastating civil war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnx2CjhHADM
To realise how horrifying the war was check out this movie
Singapore was a British colony since 1819 which is quite long and was conquered by the Japanese (the surrender of Singapore to the Imperial Japanese forces was the greatest defeat faced by the British ever).

116 · Mangesh on November 21, 2009 12:28 PM · Direct link

Do you have any proof that India was experiencing negative economic growth from 1897 to 1947

TTCUSM said
‘LinZi, Japan didn't exactly start out "struggling". Unlike India, Japan was never colonized by another country.’

117 · Mangesh on November 21, 2009 12:41 PM · Direct link

PS said
‘Britian didn't spend billions rebuilding India, after it left the region depleted’

Britain did not have to as India was not directly devastated by the Second World War. The British stopped the Japanese in Burma but I think the Japanese did reach the present North East of India.
But the British did spend a lot in rebuilding Hongkong, Singapore and Malaysia after the war.
But the second World war made India very rich as London began paying the British Indian government for part of its war contribution of goods and manpower, payments which left India with an astonishing 1.3 billion pounds in sterling balances at the end of 1945. This money was available to both the Indian and Pakistani governments at the end of the Empire in South Asia.
http://www.swaminomics.org/et_articles/et20030820_bengalfamine.htm

118 · TTCUSM on November 21, 2009 12:54 PM · Direct link

Sathya is Prema.

119 · TTCUSM on November 21, 2009 1:41 PM · Direct link

Mangesh wrote:

Persia (Iran) and Ethiopia were never colonised by any other nation, but what success stories have they been.

Iran's HDI is 0.782, which is higher than India's HDI of 0.612.

Mangesh wrote:

Singapore was a British colony since 1819 which is quite long and was conquered by the Japanese

India was ruled by the British East India Company since 1757, which is even longer.
And let's not forget, Singapore's success is partly due to its geographic location in the Straits of Malacca.

Mangesh wrote:

Britain did not have to as India was not directly devastated by the Second World War.

But the very site that you linked to states that 2.1 million people died during the Bengal Famine, when crops were diverted by the British to support the war effort.

120 · KolaNutTechie on November 21, 2009 2:42 PM · Direct link

India needs a MORE STEEP progressive tax structure, among other things. Liberal should occur more rampantly, and the government should do more ambitious civil engineering projects.

Where do you think the MORE STEEP progressive tax money will go, to the poor? Income Tax officials and not NRIs own most of the studio apartments coming up on the Greater Noida expressway (2-3 crore each) Since money in India equals social capital and license to circumvent law, it confers uber privilege and elite status. Why should an unscrupulous Byhri who passed a petty UPSC exam be afforded a status higher to say an entrepreneur who toiled, worked his intelligence and made his money the hard way. What kind of society do you think that will produce?

121 · Najil on November 21, 2009 3:07 PM · Direct link

@ Mangesh

Not exactly shrinking, but rather close

The rate of GDP and per capita growth were one per cent and 0.2 per cent respectively during the period 1900-01 to 1946-47 (Nayyar, 2006)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10459706/India%E2%80%99s-Economic-Growth-and-the-Role-of-Foreign-Direct-Investment

122 · Mangesh on November 22, 2009 2:05 AM · Direct link

TTCUSM wrote
"Iran's HDI is 0.782, which is higher than India's HDI of 0.612."
Yes but Iran can hardly be called a completely developed nation. And what about HongKong and Ireland. Both were under British rule and have a HDI far higher than Iran. And what about Ethiopia? It was never colonised like India but is in dire conditions. Unlike the rest of sub Saharan Africa, Ethiopia had a sophisticated civilization during the European age of discovery. So if it was never colonised, why is it so poor and underdeveloped today? By your logic Hongkong after so many years of British rule should have been piss-poor while Ethiopia should have been very rich.

TTCUSM wrote
"And let's not forget, Singapore's success is partly due to its geographic location in the Straits of Malacca."
India has a very strategic location too. Indeed India has a very central location in the world and in the Indian Ocean. Any ship travelling from Australia/New Zealand/ S.E. Asia to Europe and the Middle East will find India a very convenient stopping/trading point.

TTCUSM wrote

"India was ruled by the British East India Company since 1757, which is even longer."
Agreed but is that gap (less than a century) of membership of the British Empire enough to explain the enormous mind-boggling gap between Singapore and India as far as standard of living is concerned. And what about Taiwan which faced European colonisation since 1544?

TTCUSM wrote
"But the very site that you linked to states that 2.1 million people died during the Bengal Famine, when crops were diverted by the British to support the war effort."

Agreed, I never said India was never affected at all. About 80,000 Indian soldiers in the British Indian army lost their lives (British military deaths from the British Isles was about 300,000). But it was not directly affected i.e. it did not face large scale bombing of its cities and warfare between large armies within India. Indians did not have to wake up and run to bomb-shelters, see Japanese and British soldiers fight it out in their cities and villages. It was safe under Pax-Britania during WW2. Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, all of South East Asia, Europe, Soviet Union, North Africa etc... were not that lucky. The Soviet Union lost a mind-boggling 24 million people, the Germans 8.5 and Japan about 3 million. All these places had their cities bombed out completely. India was affected only indirectly. I think overall the U.S.A too was not affected directly as well.

Najil, thanks for the info.

123 · Mangesh on November 22, 2009 3:17 AM · Direct link

TTCUSM wrote
"But the very site that you linked to states that 2.1 million people died during the Bengal Famine, when crops were diverted by the British to support the war effort."

You did not read that article properly. The poor suffered during the war but the middle classes who led the independence struggle prospered. Many Indian merchants became extremely rich by supplying goods to the British Army.

Add a comment

Name:
Email:	*
Web site:	*
Remember me?	Yes No
	* (optional)
To prevent comment spam, please type the word brown:
Please don't feed the trolls.	Requests for celebrities' contact info or homework assistance; racist, abusive, illiterate, content-free or commercial comments; personal, non-issue-focused flames; intolerant or anti-secular comments; and long, obscure rants may be deleted. Unless they’re funny. It’s all good then.
Comments:


If you don't see your comment yet: Wait 15 seconds and refresh your browser, don't post a duplicate. Posting, please wait ·····